Abbott plays a dangerous game of ‘expunge Labor’

If
Tony Abbott
does what he says he will do, the period of the Rudd and Gillard governments will become blank pages in the history of federal government in Australia.

It is only just beginning to dawn on both sides of politics that Abbott has committed himself to expunging almost the sum total of the major Labor programs introduced since Rudd came to power in 2007.

This would be an unprecedented political white-out. No alternative prime minister has gone as far as Abbott in committing to completely repudiate the achievements of the government he opposes.

In Australian history, no government will have recorded as few lasting changes as the
Rudd
and Gillard administrations if the Abbott plan succeeds.

Compared with the modern Labor governments of Whitlam, Hawke and Keating – which made profound economic and social changes that subsequent conservative governments allowed to stand and have been lasting and transformational – the legacies of the later Labor governments will be laid to waste.

Abbott argues that the period of Rudd-Gillard Labor government has been the worst in Australian history.

The major policies of the period – the slide into debt, the carbon tax, the mining tax, the “wasteful and unaffordable" national broadband network, the collapse of border security – have endangered Australia’s prosperity, its security and its future.

He says his challenge is no less than to rescue Australia from this disastrous legacy. The starting point of his rescue plan is to obliterate from the political landscape what he regards as the consequences of bad government.

Related Quotes

Company Profile

One insider likens Abbott’s plan for the destruction of the Labor legacy to the “shock and awe" military strategy employed by former US president
George Bush
in Iraq.

“He wants to level the place with the most massive assault we have ever seen by a new government on its predecessor’s record," the insider says. “He wants to rebuild from the ground up."

But this source, who is one of Abbott’s own team, warns that Abbott should contemplate the aftermath of “shock and awe".

The coalition forces in Iraq left the landscape littered with unexploded ordnance and an impossibly complex political aftermath which disastrously complicated the task of returning the country to normality.

As Abbott dramatises his plans to expunge the Labor legacy with pledges in blood, there are murmurings of disquiet in his own ranks. There is concern that his political persona is being entirely shaped by his opposition to Labor’s core policies.

Some fret that offering such a negative alternative agenda could become a serious problem closer to an election.

And there is concern that the political carpet-bombing of Labor’s policy record will leave the Opposition Leader with commitments that will blow up in his face when his government tries to undo them.

Abbott seems oblivious to these concerns – and his supporters say no one is putting these arguments to him, either in shadow cabinet or in direct conversations.

They say Abbott’s political strategy has the overwhelming support of the shadow cabinet and the party room because it is working brilliantly.

“We are in the best position we could be," an Abbott confidant said. “This government is a disaster and the public is dismayed at its performance.

“All its major policies are being rejected and the voters want them overturned. We would be failing in our duty not to commit to overturning them."

The Abbott team insists the promises to rescind the carbon and taxes and to wind back public funding of the NBN have all been made after careful consideration of the complexities involved – although they also concede the complexities might increase the longer the government’s term runs.

Abbott is giving “fair warning" of his intentions and anyone, particularly in business, who fails to heed the warning will have to accept the consequences.

This particularly applies to anyone who might consider suing for damages over the loss of property rights on carbon credits that would be rendered worthless if the Clean Energy Future laws were ditched.

Abbott’s officials say a Coalition government will use “all the constitutional devices available" to it to expunge Labor’s “bad policies".

This is code for warning that Abbott will move as quickly as is possible to call a double-dissolution election to overcome any Senate obstruction of legislation required to undo Labor legacy laws.

He is, however, being coy on raising expectations about a double-dissolution ploy. He wants the debate about what happens after the election to focus on the issue of a “mandate for change".

Abbott believes a crushing Coalition victory and overwhelming electoral endorsement of his “rollback" strategy will make it extremely difficult for the then Labor opposition to try to obstruct legislation to overturn Labor’s reforms.

A senior member of the Abbott team tells the Weekend Australian Financial Review : “Our hope and reasonable expectation is that the Labor-
Bob Brown
government will be so overwhelmingly rejected at the next election that we will have a chance of winning control of the Senate and that we can implement our program fully, as promised.

“If we fall short of a Senate majority, we believe we will still have a clear mandate for our program. I think it would be a very foolish Labor opposition which tried to block in the Senate legislation to get rid of the carbon tax and the mining tax which will have played such a big part in its defeat."

Another opposition official says people should reflect on what happened to the Howard government’s Work Choices laws.

The Coalition team that was left in opposition after John Howard’s heavy defeat quickly recognised there was nothing to be gained from trying to prevent the new Labor government abandoning those laws.

“The political dynamics would be similar for the Labor opposition after the next election," the official says.

But given that the next federal election is not due until late 2013 – barring an “accident" that deprives the government of its majority sooner – there is a long political journey, with the potential for all sorts of detours and ambushes before that proposition can be tested.

It seems unlikely now, but what will happen to the Abbott strategy if, once the carbon and mining taxes are in place and the programs they fund have been in place for a while, the public judges that the Coalition’s predictions of disaster were exaggerated?

History has salutary lessons for politicians who gamble on maintaining the public’s rage once an event that has provoked anger has passed. Look at
Kim Beazley
and the GST. Look further back to
Gough Whitlam
and what happened to him, despite huge protest rallies after his sacking.

Abbott promises that a Coalition government will cut personal taxes and deliver relief for pensioners in place of the potentially popular elements of the carbon tax compensation measures.

He is also promising lower corporate tax, although he will initially increase tax on larger corporations to fund his paid parental leave scheme.

But at the same time he is nominating restoring the budget to surplus and reducing government debt as his core policy objective.

No one is able to say how he will do all these things at the same time, and the more closely all these competing objectives are studied the less credible the “core objective" of urgently rebalancing the budget appears to be.

Coalition insiders privately concede “there will have to be some fudging" on the pre-election costings to accommodate everything Abbott is promising.

In the longer term, this also raises the risk that, as prime minister, Abbott will have to make some politically tough choices – and break some promises.

But Abbott’s view is that he will cross that bridge when he comes to it. The only credibility problem occupying him is
Julia Gillard
’s – and it’s a problem he is relishing.